I was looking at a problem on the archive of peakbouldering.info (https://web.archive.org/web/20170326095233/http://peakbouldering.info/videos/161) but can't seem to work out where the video link should go. I assumed it was hosted on youtube or vimeo etc, but can't seem to work out how to actually find the link. Does anyone with better tech skills know how you might do this?
Or were videos hosted directly on peakbouldering.info and are now gone along with the site?
You serious? No different to downturned climbing shoes, carving skis or aerobars on a roadbike. I'm not getting any younger, need every help I can get.
I need to go through it all properly (not sure when though!) but in general the rebuttal document is high on assertion and low on fact.
To quote a former Directors reaction: “Some of that is fundamentally incorrect and some just inappropriate”.
My gut instinct is that the CEO £200k in kind figure is highly questionable as it contrasts so starkly with the £81k shared costs figure provided by the previous CEO and I strongly suspect doesn’t subtract the £100k? or so of grant income that the BMC gets for covering GBC’s admin costs.
There is also the notion that it is acceptable to bake in a contribution of £386kpa to GBClimbing before extras! whose participants are perhaps 1% of the membership. Elite mountaineers or elite rock climbers get buttons.
Also what is the money being spent on? In general empire building rather than direct support to athletes to gain comp experience - surely a priority in performing well in comps.
There are also references to problems with grant funding. I had a conversation with the BMC’s governance contact at UKSport and specifically asked her what would be problematic about moving to a wholly owned subsid set up and the only thing she raised was that it would be a nuisance reassigning the contracts to the new body. So things like the compliance with the Code of Spirts Governance objection I’m taking with a pinch of salt unless the BMC can identify which parts of the code and why and back that up with testimony from UKS.
As for keeping it internal I’d like to be trusting but it leaves far too much scope for funny business due to lack of transparency.
That’s just an initial brain dump and as I said I need to go through it more systematically and pick a few brains.
Recent Posts
